>Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Thursday took a shot at rival Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie, saying there is a "learning problem" when trying to explain the benefits of encryption to the New Jersey governor.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/259950-paul-learning-problem-exists-when-talking-encryption-with-christie
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT RETARDED FUCK
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT FUCK
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT FUCK
>>55526908
Glad Paul is embracing tech issues, he's the only guy to so. Got to spread the word to those comp sci majors.
Upboat on reddit, gotta spread the word.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/259950-paul-learning-problem-exists-when-talking-encryption-with-christie
>>55526908
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT FUCK
The best strategy for Rand is to attack the person directly above him in polling. Its suicide to go after Trump so he better take it slow if he wants to get up there.
Well anyway Krispy Kreme is below him.
>>55526908
NO AMNESTY YOU FUCKING INSANE RANDLET FUCKER!! 30 MILLION NEW DEMOCRAP VOTERS, WTF ARE YOU THINKING, OR BEINGTOLD TO THINK
>>55531136
http://www.npr.org/2015/11/10/455359422/where-the-2016-candidates-stand-on-immigration-in-one-chart
>NPR
I know
>>55531402
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Rand_Paul_Immigration.htm
Q: Does a "pathway to citizenship" mean amnesty in your book?
PAUL: I think that that's the whole point: What is amnesty? Because, [for those who say] "no deportation and no amnesty," well, if you're not going to deport people you are somehow changing the current law because the current law says everybody must go.
Q: But you've said that the party should give up this word "amnesty"?
PAUL: I think we need to get beyond it. We need some form of immigration reform.
Q: And a path to citizenship?
PAUL: Well, the path to citizenship is a longer, more difficult goal.
Q: But you don't rule it out as an end game?
PAUL: What I would say is that at this point in time I don't think any type of immigration reform will get out of Washington that includes a path to citizenship. But I do think that there is a path to a secure border and an expanded work visa program.
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky is endorsing a pathway to citizenship for the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants. In a speech, the potential 2016 presidential candidate declares, "If you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you."
Paul's path to citizenship would come with conditions that could make it long and difficult for illegal immigrants. Chief among these, Congress would have to agree first that progress was being made on border security.
Paul's speech is peppered with Spanish phrases from his youth in Texas, references to his immigrant grandparents and praise for Latino culture. He says his party must adopt a new face toward Hispanics and says conservatives must be part of it. "Immigration reform will not occur until conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation," Paul says. "Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport" the millions already here, he says.
come at me bro
>>55531544
Amnesty implies that all illegals become legal at the drop of the hat. Immigration reform (A process that currently can take many years) isn't amnesty.
>>55526908
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT FUCK
We are the party that embraces hard work and ingenuity, therefore we must be the party that embraces the immigrant who wants to come to America for a better future. We must be the party who sees immigrants as assets, not liabilities. We must be the party that says, "If you want to work, if you want to become an American, we welcome you."
nice try, it's still amnesty, you kikeold
B T F O D
T
F
O
D
>>55532027
BRIT FAGS GET OUT
>>55532070
we are of one blood ya fat american burger wank
>>55532027
Anything that isn't GTFO BEANERS is amnesty.
Okay
>>55532222
Quads confirm
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT FUCK
>>55532222
even quints can't excuse you're lack of knowledge as to you're current location, wankstain
if you are pro amnesty, you are pro White genocide, this shit won't fly, the penalty for genocide, or complicity in genocide is death
remember that
>>55532335
The flags displayed in State courts and courts of the United States have gold or yellow fringes. That is your WARNING that you are entering into a foreign enclave, the same as if you are stepping into a foreign embassy and you will be under the jurisdiction of that flag. The flag with the gold or yellow fringe has no constitution, no laws, and no rules of court, and is not recognized by any nation on the earth, and is foreign to you and the United States of America. more information
MILITARY FLAG WITH THE GOLD FRINGE
Martial Law Flag "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3; Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The President of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the military. The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy." 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 83.
President, Dwight David Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law, stated that: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe border on three sides."
This is exactly why so many judges are appointed, and not elected by the people. The Federal judges are appointed by the President, the national military commander in chief. The State judges are appointed by the Governors, the state military commanders. The judges are appointed because the courts are military courts and civilians do not "elect" military officers.
Under martial law, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
The gold-fringed flag only stands inside military courts that sit in summary court martial proceedings against civilians and such courts are governed in part by local rules, but more especially by "The Manual of Courts Martial", U.S., 1994 Ed., at Art. 99, (c)(1)(b), pg. IV-34, PIN 030567-0000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. The details of the crimes that civilians can commit, that are classed as 'Acts of War,' cover 125 pages in the Manual of Courts Martial.
Under Article IV, section 3, of the Constitution for the united States of America, no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State. So -- Why have the judges of the State and Federal courts been allowed to erect foreign enclaves within our public courthouses under a foreign flag with the yellow fringe upon the soil of your state?
We just thought you would like to know, so that the next time you see this yellow fringed flag you will know what you are looking at and what it really means. If you are in Spain and you see the National Flag of Spain, you would know that you are under the jurisdiction of Spain; and their laws govern you at this time. You are officially NOTICED when you see their flag. This is an admiralty law that says that all who see this flag understand they are governed by the laws of the country that this flag represents. You SHOULD understand that the gold or yellow fringed flag signifies the same thing. It is a notice to you that you are under the rules and regulations of the military force that is flying that flag.
Are you familiar with martial law?
Does your attorney understand what this flag means?
"It is an elementary rule of pleading, that a plea to the jurisdiction is a tacit (silent) admission that the court has a right to judge the case and is a waiver to all exception to the jurisdiction."(Girty v. Logan, 6 Bush KY, 8)
http://www.title4flags.com/flags.htm
Yellow Fringed Admiralty Flag
http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=iso-8859-1&q=Yellow+Fringed+Admiralty+Flag&_sb_lang=en
Fringe On The U.S. Flag What Does It Mean?
http://user.icx.net/~drherb/fringe.html
United States Executive Order 10834
http://fotw.vexillum.com/flags/us-exord.html
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT FUCK.
GET A WARRANT YOU FAT FUCK
Patriots are subjected to much ridicule when they object to [Admiralty flag] the flag that appears in every government office and courtroom in the land.
That flag is the United States flag... with one seemingly minor cosmetic
difference - a knotted golden fringe on three sides.
Government officials and judges adamantly refuse requests to remove the gold fringed flag and replace it with the constitutional flag of the United States as defined in 4 U.S.C. Section 1,2, and 3 - which has NO fringe.
Why should anyone be concerned about this apparently innocent decorative feature? What difference does it make?
GO HERE FOR THE REST OF THE STORY:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031205030542/http://user.icx.net/~drherb/fringe.html
Fringe On The U.S. Flag What Does It Mean?
http://web.archive.org/web/20031205030542/http://user.icx.net/~drherb/fringe.html
======================================================
What Does The Gold-Fringed Flag Signify?
It is commonplace to see a gold-fringed United States flag standing in the
present-day courtrooms. Is the gold fringe there for decoration only, or
does it signify a certain jurisdiction? Make no mistake about it -- the
American People have been put on notice that the normal constitutional
functions of government have been suspended and that their Land has been placed under martial law. The information below is not by any means exhaustive, but will at least point the reader in the right direction to do additional research on his own.
Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag," a military flag does result in
jurisdictional implications when flown
(Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 Ill. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 Am).
Under the powers designated by these statutes, the President may: seize
property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities,assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communications, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a plethora of particular ways,
control the lives of all American citizens.... (United
States Senate Report 93-549, 19 November 1973).
GO HERE FOR DETAILED INFORMATION:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010720143543/www.crownrights.com/caesar/gold_fringe.htm
THE FLAG, AS WITH ALL THINGS IN LAW, IS HIGHLY DEFINED.
Treatise - by Velma Gay
On The Title 4 U.S.C. 1,
American Flag of Peace of the united States of America
THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO PROVISIONS IN THE LAW FOR ADDING A FOURTH COLOR (YELLOW FRINGE) TO THE TITLE 4 U.S.C. 1,2 FLAG.
[SNIP]
THE LAW OF THE FLAG
The Law of the Flag, an International Law, which is recognized by every nation of the planet, is defined as:
" .. a rule to the effect that a vessel is a part of the territory of the nation whose flag she flies. The term is used to designate the RIGHTS under which a ship owner, who sends his vessel into a foreign port, gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the ship master that he intends the Law of that Flag to regulate those contracts, and that they must either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ref.: Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41
GO HERE FOR MORE DETAILS:
http://freedomsite.net/93-549.htm
>CNN
>randlets gets BTFO about being wrong on his TPP point
hahaha will manlets ever learn?
I would like to bring up a most important point regarding the application of Admiralty Law against the American people.
An example is the below case. Others occur on a daily basis throughout the United States with every seizure of property without the property owner being charged in any crime. Rather they "charge" the property with the crime and seize the property.
Here is the point. The application of Admiralty Law against the People was one of the main causes of the Revolutionary War. The Founders were adamant in their opposition to this practice and there was never any provision for this oppression allowed in the Constitution.
Rather, just the opposite is evidenced by three documents. The Declaration of Independence was actually the third Declaration issued by the Founders. The Declaration of Independence culminated the frustrations of the Colonies because Great Britian ignored the pleas to correct the injustices listed in the 2 earlier Declarations. AND BOTH LISTED THE APPLICATION OF ADMIRALTY LAW AGAINST THE PEOPLE AS A GRIEVANCE!
The first Declaration was the, "DECLARATION AND RESOLVES OF THE FIRST
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS," October 14,1774.
I wish to underscore the significance of placing this grievance in the FIRST paragraph of this declaration of grievances. In the FIRST paragraph, our Founding Fathers stated:
"Whereas, since the close of the last war, the British parliament, claiming a power, of right, to bind the people of America by statutes in all cases whatsoever, hath, in some acts, expressly imposed taxes on them, and in others, under various pretences, but in fact for the purpose of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies, established a board, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties , but for the trial of causes merely arising within the
body of a county."
NOTES: The "last war" they are referring to is the "French and Indian War." Please notice the Founder's objection to the extension of Courts of Admiralty. These Courts were to operate on the high seas, and to serve as collectors for duties on imported goods or fees associated with ships as well as administering the "Prize Courts" (the seizure of property). These courts, however, were not supposed to be applied on land against the people. On land, the People were to be served by "Common Law." They were never supposed to be used "for the trial of causes merely arising within the body of a county."
Great Britian ignored the first declaration, and so the following year, the Founders went on to again bring up this grievance in the second declaration issued on July 6, 1775.
This Declaration is known as, "THE DECLARATION OF THE CAUSES AND NECESSITY OF TAKING UP ARMS."
In this declaration the Founders state:
"These devoted colonies were judged to be in such a state, as to present victories without bloodshed, and all the easy emoluments of statuteable plunder." (MY NOTE: Please understand the preceeding sentence. Today is a carbon copy repeat of this philosphy of government)
"The uninterrupted tenor of their peaceable and respectful behaviour from the beginning of colonization, their dutiful, zealous, and useful services during the war, though so recently and amply acknowledged in the most honourable manner by his majesty, by the late king, and by parliament, could not save them from the meditated innovations.
Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it.
They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable priviledge of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property; for suspending the legislature of one of the colonies; for interdicting all commerce to the capital of another; and for altering fundamentally the form of
government established by charter, and secured by acts of its own legislature solemnly confirmed by the crown; for exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial, and in effect, from punishment; for erecting in a neighbouring province, acquired by the joint arms of Great-Britain and America, a despotism dangerous to our very existence; and for quartering soldiers upon the colonists in time of profound peace. It has also been resolved in parliament, that colonists charged with committing certain offences shall be transported to England to be tried. But why should we enumerate our injuries in detail? By one statute it is declared, that parliament can of right make laws to bind us in all cases what so ever. What is to defend us against so enormous so unlimited a power?"
Please once again notice the position in their list of grievances where the Founders place this policy of "...extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty ...." They placed this grievance BEFORE objecting to not having a trial by jury, BEFORE the suspension of one of the legislatures of one of the Colonies (equal to suspending the legislature of one of our States), BEFORE their complaint of the central government (Great Britain) changing the very system of our government, and even BEFORE complaining that the central government was "...exempting the 'murderers' of colonists from legal trial...!"
Indeed, the Founders strenously objected to applying Admiralty Law against the people! The third proof is found in the Constitution itself, in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment guarantees, "The Right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; ...."
And the 5th Amendment states, "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of Law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
Just what kind of Law does the Constitution refer to, when it speaks of the
people being subjected to?
The 7th Amendment gives that answer.
It says, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed 20 dollars, the Right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact, tried by a jury shall be reexamined in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law."
Please note it does not leave any wiggle room. The Law we are to be subjected to in any controversy exceeding 20 dollars is the Common Law! NOT ADMIRALTY LAW!
And, YES!, this abridgement of our Liberties is as serious today as it was in 1775!
>>55534016
Okay so my local court got the wrong fringed flag when the county bought the cheapest us flags they could find in order that they pocket the difference in the purchase order. So how does that alter the (publicly viewable) rules and ordinances by which the court is bound into some imaginary sea-law?
>>55534497
I have to go to bed nigger
I'll see you in the next rand(oh I'm so constitutional, only I'm in favor of White genocide) thread
>>55534497
Rand paul is a bitch as are you for not knowing about the gold fringe
